Tossing Around A Tautology

Wouldn't energy at time zero..

What is time zero?

Post 181

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 10:07pm

Joel,

============
If you can abandon --even temporarily-- 'happy living', then 'happy living' cannot be your higher standard of moral life.
============

That's not my point, my point was that "the gratifications of the mindless whims of any immediate moment" are NOT 'happy living'.

My point was that "... only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral."

My point was that "'Man's survival qua man' means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan--in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice."

So don't conflate a range-of-the-moment whim-worship with genuine human happiness, or Objectivism. Range-of-the-moment whim-worship is TRUE of vulgar hedonism -- but FALSE as a viable means to human happiness, or as an Objectivist prescription for such.

Ed

Post 182

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 10:19pm

Joel,

=============
What is the origin of man's metaphysical necessity of morality? Ed, do you think we can find this origin in nature, namely, in human genes?
=============

No, we couldn't close off the rest of reality -- and glean morality from a mapped genome. The 'necessity' is in the interaction of the human type of being, with this universe's type of reality (ie. the necessity is everywhere). Language and inter-generational knowledge transfer are not luxuries for homo sapiens, they are pivotal necessities for our continued survival.

There is one right way for humans to live on earth. It involves acknowledgment of our available powers, and the discovery of how to properly employ them on this dynamic and rivalrous planet. Anything else -- is just another form of mitigated suicide.

Ed

Post 183

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:33am

"Wouldn't energy at time zero just be potential energy? What's "pure" energy?"

Good points, Jenna.

I understand "pure" energy as the only possible configuration of energy before becoming photons --radiation-- or strings of energy --matter.

Strictly speaking, time zero is something almost unfathomable, so maybe energy at time zero --"before" time-- actually was potential energy.

(Some theoretical physicists even say that that potential for energy was "a law" or "an idea" --a thought by the immaterial Creator-- defining the universe...)

---

My current view is that matter ultimately is strings of energy; without stringed energy there is no matter. "Energy" is the basic law defining the universe.

Some of the most recent steps in theoretical physics (and mathematics) have been directed towards the formulation of a unifying theory of quantum gravity --quantum mechanics made compatible to general relativity through increasing the number of dimensions--, called "Theory of Everything." The idea is that the fundamental entities of the universe are relationships, rather than "things."

Now, of course, Robert Malcolm may say that "relationships" are something rather that nothing...

Anyway, in describing the merger (or better interface) of physics and metaphysics, there arise the intrinsic limitations of language. Everything cannot be defined, for we would need infinite words.

The fact is: it has been demonstrated by science that a strictly materialist view of reality is wrong. In example: remember Schroedinger's cat; the kitty's life depends on a wave function.

The primacy of material existence is wrong; the primacy of conscious existence --of the observer--, I think, is right.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/05, 7:05am)

Post 184

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 4:27am

============
If you can abandon --even temporarily-- 'happy living', then 'happy living' cannot be your higher standard of moral life.
============

"That's not my point, my point was that "the gratifications of the mindless whims of any immediate moment" are NOT 'happy living'."

Then, could you define what is the objective --same for all folks-- and timeless aspect of 'happy living', as you recently suggested?

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/05, 6:34am)

Post 185

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 4:38am

Ed said:

"The 'necessity' [for a universal, objective, timeless morality] is in the interaction of the human type of being, with this universe's type of reality (ie. the necessity is everywhere)."

And what do you think is the nature of this necessity of morality that is everywhere?

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/05, 5:48am)

Post 186

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:26am

Joel,

=============
Then, could you define what is the objective --same for all folks-- and timeless aspect of 'happy living'
=============

"One of the features of reality that defines what our species requires [for happy living] would be the metaphysical necessity of Reason. Man doesn't survive by sharp claw or fang [only by a sharp mind]."

So one objective -- same for all folks, and timeless -- necessity for a morality for the human type of being, would be the use of reason as a guide to action. Any morality that conflicts with or abandons reason is ipso facto wrong.

Ed

Post 187

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 3:05am

When I said:

=============
Then, could you define what is the objective --same for all folks-- and timeless aspect of 'happy living'
=============

Ed responded:

"One of the features of reality that defines what our species requires [for happy living] would be the metaphysical necessity of Reason. Man doesn't survive by sharp claw or fang [only by a sharp mind]."

So one objective -- same for all folks, and timeless -- necessity for a morality for the human type of being, would be the use of reason as a guide to action. Any morality that conflicts with or abandons reason is ipso facto wrong.

Not correct. Indeed, reason is one of the highest values, but not what defines the right morality [*].

Morality and reason are independent entities. In example, my dog --which, I can tell you, is an utterly amoral being-- is capable of associating particular behaviors with punishment or reward; and that's logic.

When I wrote "could you define what is the objective [...] and timeless aspect of 'happy living'", I meant:

Ed, could you show me how you make compatible the affirmation of an objective, timeless morality with metaphysical naturalism, which is your position, and the Objectivist one?

I am interested in receiving your reply to my post #185, too. Thank you.

[*]: Evil people can be very appreciative of reason and material interests (i.e., Nazism --its ideological root is Socialism.) Additionally, here you have two good points against your view of reason as the source of morality:

"[...] belief in reason alone is itself based on an irrational belief -- that people are basically good. You have to believe that people are basically good in order to believe that human reason will necessarily lead to moral conclusions.

"[...] even when reason does lead to a moral conclusion, it in no way compels acting on that conclusion."

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/06, 6:25am)

Post 188

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 11:50am

Joel,

===========
And what do you think is the nature of this necessity of morality that is everywhere?
===========

It's in the universal relation of the identity of man to the nature of reality.

Ed

Post 189

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 11:54am

Joel,

==============
Morality and reason are independent entities.
==============

This is true in the wholly abstracted, rationalistic sense (where you don't integrate the human type of being while mentally juggling these 2 concepts). When tied to reality, however, 'morality' is always morality 'of man' (that creature which always and everywhere depends on reason for his knowledge).

Ed

Post 190

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 11:58am

Joel,

=============
In example, my dog --which, I can tell you, is an utterly amoral being-- is capable of associating particular behaviors with punishment or reward; and that's logic.
=============

No. That's rote memorization (vulgar -- ie. non-logical -- association). Logic requires the use of symbols (items with some semantic meaning), not mere signs (non-understood directives). Your dog is dumb, Joel (all dogs are) -- though he may still be very dear to you (dear and dumb).

Ed

Post 191

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 12:08pm

Joel,

=================
Evil people can be very appreciative of reason and material interests (i.e., Nazism --its ideological root is Socialism.)
=================

But evil people fail to appreciate immaterial interests (justice, love, integrity, etc) and -- in the long run -- this ruins them. This is why Hitler died at a relatively young age. This is why 30 million died under Mao. This is why 20 million died under Stalin. You won't be able to escape consequences of actions (we're punished BY our sins).

Evil folks err in limiting the extent that they integrate (they purposefully impose a limit to their own reasoning) -- and this ruins them.

=================
Additionally, here you have two good points against your view of reason as the source of morality:

"[...] belief in reason alone is itself based on an irrational belief -- that people are basically good. You have to believe that people are basically good in order to believe that human reason will necessarily lead to moral conclusions.

"[...] even when reason does lead to a moral conclusion, it in no way compels acting on that conclusion."
=================

I didn't say that reason is the SOURCE of morality. Reasoning (with regard to perceptions and abstractions) is the SOURCE of human knowledge. The SOURCE of morality is the universal relation of the identity of man (that volitional being that can consciously adopt values) to the nature of reality (that existence that, always & everywhere, affords consequences).

It is because man is the type of being that has to choose what he values -- that allows for the existence of the concept of morality.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/06, 12:09pm)

Post 192

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 7:56am

( Deleted post: question already addressed by Ed.)

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/07, 8:06am)

Post 193

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 7:59am

Ed said:

Joel,

=============
In example, my dog --which, I can tell you, is an utterly amoral being-- is capable of associating particular behaviors with punishment or reward; and that's logic.
=============

No. That's rote memorization (vulgar -- ie. non-logical -- association). Logic requires the use of symbols (items with some semantic meaning), not mere signs (non-understood directives). Your dog is dumb, Joel (all dogs are) -- though he may still be very dear to you (dear and dumb).

Ed

Ok, assuming you are right, I recall the example of the Nazis. Nazism --as all sorts of fundamentalist collectivism-- is utterly amoral.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/07, 8:09am)

Post 194

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 8:01am

Ed said:

Joel,

==============
Morality and reason are independent entities.
==============

This is true in the wholly abstracted, rationalistic sense (where you don't integrate the human type of being while mentally juggling these 2 concepts). When tied to reality, however, 'morality' is always morality 'of man' (that creature which always and everywhere depends on reason for his knowledge).

Ed

If we agreed that morality and reason are independent entities, you implicitly admitted that Objectivism has a problem.

Of course, man potentially is a moral being, but morality exists independently of any actual (good or evil) man. Here lays the tricky question about the 'nature' of morality: you can live a long life without morality. There are examples.

Morality necessarily is eternal, timeless; would you say that that 'man's type of being' --his essence as a moral man-- is also eternal?

I think so: the human soul --the moral core of every man, "large" or "small"-- is eternal.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/07, 9:09am)

Post 195

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 8:35am

Ed asserted:

Joel,

=================
Evil people can be very appreciative of reason and material interests (i.e., Nazism --its ideological root is Socialism.)
=================

But evil people fail to appreciate immaterial interests (justice, love, integrity, etc) and -- in the long run -- this ruins them. This is why Hitler died at a relatively young age. This is why 30 million died under Mao. This is why 20 million died under Stalin. You won't be able to escape consequences of actions (we're punished BY our sins).

Evil folks err in limiting the extent that they integrate (they purposefully impose a limit to their own reasoning) -- and this ruins them.

Yes, evil people sustain a flawed vision of immaterial interests --sometimes, they even deny the existence of immateriality.

But I don't see any necessary correlation between performing moral errors and "dying young." The tyrant Hitler died "relatively young" because the American people decided to act morally, not because evil is a sort of physical illness.

In example: the dictator Franco, Mao, or Stalin, who executed and promoted the suffering of innocent individuals, died in bed. True justice is individual justice, and they died without trial; those evil folks I mentioned apparently escaped "consequences of (their wrong) actions."

No: morality is not embedded in nature; the 'noble savage' is a myth; children need moral education in order to become moral, in order to become humans prepared for the pursue of their fulfillment.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/07, 8:49am)

Post 196

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 8:59am

Ed said:

It is because man is the type of being that has to choose what he values -- that allows for the existence of the concept of morality.

I am not talking about your concept of morality, I am always talking about the universal --the referent of the concept-- we name morality.

Concepts are not eternal, the referent of the concept "morality" indeed is eternal. Here lays the juicy question --and, indeed, that's something that puts Objectivism in a untenable position.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/07, 9:13am)

Post 197

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 9:33am

Joel, what evidence do you offer that there is some "universal morality"?

Post 198

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 9:40am

Joel, what evidence do you offer that there is some "universal morality"?

It's not evidence, but a deduction: without an universal morality, a correct, objective morality cannot exist. As I said in post #156, there are only two (mutually exclusive) possibilities:

A) A human can create a moral system --typically the one that "fits better" to him. I think we can agree this is a false morality.

B) A human can recognize the existence of an objective, absolute moral system, not dependent of his being.

I stand for B.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/07, 9:44am)

Post 199

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 10:09am